You stated: I think it was JRR
Tolkien (or was it?) who once commented on the problems of the word
"chieftain" having Amerindian connotations (this talking about
translating Beowulf), but by now "chieftain" seems quite a standard way
of translating höfðingi, and so it might be more confusing--dishonest
even?--to use different titles for the same person. Since hersir is a
different word, it might be a good idea to consistently translate this
"lord" in distinction to höfðingi. It's what I tend to do, but I doubt I
live up to any rigorous standards
The word hofdingi and hersir
have different connotations. You are right hofdingi is cheiftain whereas
hersir is definately related to war, her = war is a very common word and
broadly Germanic. So while hofdingi, (hof - temple, abode) would more
correlate to POLITICAL leader being it is related to more or less
geographic connotations, again, hof a place. Whereas, hersir would be
translated as Warlord, or Warleader, being her is related to war.
This is why, IMO, a literal translation is preferable. But other may
take a different appoach.
--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
wrote: > > > Dirk, Sarah, Patricia, Laurel, Mona
(and everyone else interested in > boendr!), hello! >
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Dirk Howat"
<dirk_howat@...> > wrote: > > > > This
implies being bonded to another person (of greater stature) > and
> > the inability to own land. > > Here's part of the
entry in Cleasby & Vigfusson: > > "properly a part, act.
from búa (turned into a noun subst., cp. > frændi, fjándi), A. S.
buan; Germ, bauer, and therefore originally a > till er of the
ground, husbandman, but it always involved the sense > of
ownership, and included all owners of land (or boer, q. v.). from
> the petty freeholder to the franklin, and esp. the-class
represented > by the yeoman of England generally or the statesman
of Westmoreland > and Cumberland..." > > http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/scanned_books/html/oi_ >
cleasbyvigfusson/b0074.html > > My apologies if everyone's
already read this in the course of this > discussion! The
article goes on to say that bóndi acquired > derogatory connotations
in 'despotic' Norway (of commoners as > opposed to nobility), but
positive ones in the Icelandic > commonwealth (where it simply
excluded priests & knights). All of > which makes me wonder
if--in spite of your reservation's Dirk-- > "farmer" might be the best
all purpose translation after all, as it > has that ambiguity in
modern English. That seems the most literal, > and it could
refer to some poor farmer with one cow and a small > field, or it
might be a large landowner with wealth and influence. > > More
specific words like franklin or freeholder might work in some >
contexts--I'd have to check the exact meanings of these (and so >
might many readers...)--but serf and bondsman maybe stray too far? >
> > > > Here is what I do: > > If you come
across the word multiple times, I would translate it > in >
> a few meanings. For example, if bondi was used 3 times the same
> > text, in the same context a farmer, not a noble, I would
translate > > bondi as: > > > > >
> bondsmen > > serf > > farmer > >
karl > > > This is a subject I've been thinking about a
bit recently. It's > often what I do too: it allows you to
cunningly slip in the various > meanings contained in the
original word without being too verbose, > or having recourse to
clunking explanations. But on the other hand, > I've read
some saga translation reviews which frown on this > as
"inconsistency". And I can see the point that if a particular >
term is used in the original, for example with legal implications in
> Norse society, it might be important to stick to one English term
to > translate it. The choice of an English word might then
be > relatively arbitrary (it might even be a more or less artificial
> calque like "landmen" or "landed men"), but by constant use, a
sense > of the connotations of the original word would come
out. > > I think it was JRR Tolkien (or was it?) who once
commented on the > problems of the word "chieftain" having Amerindian
connotations > (this talking about translating Beowulf), but by now
"chieftain" > seems quite a standard way of translating höfðingi, and
so it might > be more confusing--dishonest even?--to use
different titles for the > same person. Since hersir is a
different word, it might be a good > idea to consistently translate
this "lord" in distinction to > höfðingi. It's what I tend to
do, but I doubt I live up to any > rigorous standards... >
> There are also stylistic arguments for at least aiming at >
consistency, where possible. For example if a certain word or >
phrase is repeated in the original, there might be a good aesthetic
> reason for this. On the whole, I try not to lose such
effects, even > if the result sounds strange in English.
Strange is sometimes good! > > But the other side to this
is that, in some areas, Icelandic has a > more varied vocabulary than
English: mælti, kvað, sagði (all of > which suggest English
"said")--yes there are alternatives, but they > usually introduce
some extra meaning not in the > original: "declared", "objected",
etc. So where the meaning and > aesthetics aren't affected I do
add some arbitrary variety to > balence this out. Or that's my
excuse, anyway. > > > > > > If bondi was
used for a man going viking then I might translate > > bondi if it
came up mulitple times as first: > > > >
bondsmen > > karl > > The second of these could
suggest to people with some knowledge of > Old Norse, or at least the
names for classes of people, that the > word in the original was karl
(man, chap; commoner, peasant)-- which > some might see as
misleading--although as far as I know the terms > karl and bóndi
aren't always mutually exclusive. Not necessarily > disagreeing
with you on this one--just something else to think about > (as if
all that grammar's not enough!). Here's a question: do you >
know if jarl and bóndi are exclusive? I get the impression that
> they would be. > > > > > Again, one
of the uses of the literal translation is changing > > English
back into more like it was. We thus gain a paradigm shift. > I
> > understand some people want to modernize it for whatever their
> > reasons are, like many Christian translate the bible in
different > > ways to fullfill their political agenda. Literal
translations > takes > > political motives out of it and
immerses the reader into that > > society as realistically as
possible. > > > Sometimes this can be not so much
changing English back into what it > was, as creating a sort of
lingua franca for the past to talk to the > present--if that
makes sense?--something that is clear to modern > readers but also
has a terminology consistent with that of the > original.
Actually this is a huge balencing act, if you sacrifice > some ease
of understanding on the part of the casual reader, you > might get a
more strictly acurate version. By chosing unfamiliar > words
(archaic or modern), you could remove these political > associations
and force the reader to learn the acurate meaning. But >
then go too far and it could get intimidating, or be seen as >
shirking the duty of translator. But by picking a term with some
> associations, but hopefully not too many misleading ones, you
might > just get the best of both worlds: something the casual
reader can > understand, but which repays closer study. >
> To some extent this is a matter of taste. Anyway, I'm
waffling, so > I'll shut up now. > > Llama
Nom